(31-01-2018 11:51 AM)BikerDude Wrote: ...The idea that they would have debating gun ownership or suggesting that people should have the right only in the context of a militia is patently absurd.

Can you tell me why you consider it "patently absurd" that only a militia should possess guns?

I agree that 250 years ago, owning a firearm was a necessity, particularly in rural regions, but that was then and this is now. Would you agree that the particular reasons for owning guns back then no longer apply in the 21st century?

The only people who "need" a gun now are the military and the police.

How many bears or coyotes, or native Americans have you had to defend your home and family from recently? Or how many armed home invasions have you fought off?
Shot and wounded any burglars or potential rapists lately?

You'll also note that he strawmanned me on the gunownership. No where did I say there was only one reason to own firearms back then. Lots of people fed their family in part from hunting, especially in the winter when the crops were in and the leaves were down. But that's just Bikerdude being a gunner.

(02-02-2018 01:14 PM)kim Wrote: Anyway, there was a scene where two opposing groups of 18 to 20-ish males came nose to nose. It was possible they would get physical or maybe they would work things out, in order to go their separate ways. Just as tensions were escalating between the two would-be "leaders", a gun physically lands on the floor at their feet. They both look at it and look at each other with equal amounts of surprise and fear.

What happens next is very interesting ... they all run.
There is no scrambling for the gun - no one wants to be near it. The gut-reaction-fear of (as DLJ said) accountability, overshadowed even their hatred of each other, probably temporarily but still, they ran.

In France, a gun is illegal.

Accountability.
In the US, people don't seem to fear the notion of accountability.

Fascinating; I'll have to look for that movie when I get the chance. However, I do have questions. Was it fear of accountability? Or was it fear of the gun itself, and who might pick it up? If not familiarized with firearms, suddenly being near one can be rather jarring, especially when tensions are so high already- one can assume that the culture of France in the 1970s was not one that would have seen the vast majority of the population being acclimated to the presence of a firearm, unlike what you might find in America. Furthermore, how did the gun get there? Someone must have brought it to this confrontation; one must wonder their motives, why it was pulled out, and how it ended up on the ground.
Not to say that you are wrong, accountability certainly is important in ownership and use of firearms as with any other potentially dangerous activity that demands responsibility, care, and total attention. The main question is, to what degree should an individual be held accountable? Of course, this must be taken on a case-by-case basis following investigation of an incident, but there are a few cases that provide near-constants. For instance, if a kid gets a hold of a gun and takes it to school and shoots his classmates, I find it nearly impossible to believe that there wasn't criminal activity occurring in the home- abuse, neglect, something of the sort, more than just whether or not the kid had easy access to a gun. On the other end of the scale, we have people who are charged by the state for murder because they are unable to prove that they took every possible action to escape the person attacking them. And to what degree, really, can we judge someone suddenly thrust into what is (to them) un unprecedented life-or-death situation where they must make a snap decision with their life on the line, as far as they are able to perceive? Let me give you an example: When I worked in an auxiliary security force (basically, gate guard duty) at a previous base where I was stationed, we were trained that if someone walks up to the gate with a vest and says they have a bomb, you must immediately shoot them in the head. Whether they are strapped with dynamite or road flares is irrelevant- if they appear to have capability, opportunity, and intent to commit harm, perception is more important than reality in the moment that you have to squeeze the trigger.
Let me lay down this one ground rule for accountability if no other: it is the responsibility of the state to prove guilt, not the responsibility of the individual to prove innocence.

A Catholic, an Atheist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Baptist, and a Pastafarian all walk into a bar. They chat, drink, laugh, and have a good time. There's no joke to be had. It's what happens when you're not a dick.

A total of 95 handguns probably doesn't sound like a lot to Americans, but here in Australia, that's around 10% of the total firearms stolen in a typical 12-month period in the state of Victoria, and would be regarded as "flooding" the illegal market. These guns would have a combined street value of around $1 million.

(31-01-2018 11:51 AM)BikerDude Wrote: ...The idea that they would have debating gun ownership or suggesting that people should have the right only in the context of a militia is patently absurd.

Can you tell me why you consider it "patently absurd" that only a militia should possess guns?

First, the militia was entirely composed of the people. It was not a standing force, when the people were not called upon the militia didn't exist.

Second, the Second Amendment reserves the right to the people. In the other amendments that refer to "the people" (I, IV, X), it is unarguable that it means every individual. It doesn't mean something different in II. The Bill of Rights describes rights of the people.

Quote:I agree that 250 years ago, owning a firearm was a necessity, particularly in rural regions, but that was then and this is now. Would you agree that the particular reasons for owning guns back then no longer apply in the 21st century?

The only people who "need" a gun now are the military and the police.

That is naive, at best. The response time for police is measured in minutes while the necessity for self-defense is measured in seconds.

Quote:How many bears or coyotes, or native Americans have you had to defend your home and family from recently? Or how many armed home invasions have you fought off?

I have killed a rabid raccoon, put down a dog that was hit by a car, and there are bears, coyotes, and possibly pumas in my area.
I have an orchard and deer are a damaging pest; as an orchard owner, I can shoot them any time of the year.

Quote:Shot and wounded any burglars or potential rapists lately?

A firearm is not always fired to be used successfully. Many times, the threat alone is sufficient.

I am handicapped and not young; I live alone and largely out of sight of neighbors.
Do you really suggest that I rely on police who are miles away to protect me in the event of violence?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Quote:Accountability.
In the US, people don't seem to fear the notion of accountability.

Actually, gun owners do. The gun owners I know understand that there will be legal consequences for shooting someone in self-defense. It will need to be determined if it was justified.
There are self-defense courses given for when using a gun is appropriate, what to do in the event, and what to do afterwards.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.